Welcome to GPFans

CHOOSE YOUR COUNTRY

  • NL
  • GB
  • GB
Download
×
GPFans Global app
Download the app!
Everything F1 in one place!
Tost: "Out of date" definition of a constructor to blame for spiralling costs

Tost: "Out of date" definition of a constructor to blame for spiralling costs

News

Tost: "Out of date" definition of a constructor to blame for spiralling costs

Tost: "Out of date" definition of a constructor to blame for spiralling costs

AlphaTauri team principal Franz Tost feels the "out of date" philosophy that "every team must be a constructor" is to blame for costs spiralling out of control in Formula 1.

Ahead of the current season, F1 and Liberty Media announced a budget cap be enforced from 2021 onwards. Starting at $145 million. The figure will be gradually lowered by a further $10m to a level of $135m by 2023.

Despite this, Tost feels it could benefit the sport to do away with the philosophy that every team must be a constructor.

The AlphaTauri boss said: “The personal opinion from my side is that teams should be able to buy much more from another team.

“Why? Because for me, this philosophy that every team must be a constructor is out of date. I know all the Formula 1 purists say ‘ah, we must be a constructor. Every team must design everything in house’. The engineers are saying this – ‘How do you finance everything?’

“Because we reach such a high level on the technical side, the top teams have such a fantastic infrastructure, if someone wants to come into Formula 1, even the teams which are in Formula 1, if they want to catchup this is very difficult and nearly impossible, and you’ve spent millions. I’m just asking what for?

“I’m asking why every team has to have its own wind tunnel, its own CFD, has to have 5-600 employees.

“Of course, we say now there is the cost cap coming. Nevertheless, in my opinion, we still spend too much money, especially now under these difficult economic circumstances.

“But the regulation is how it is, but personally, I still think back to the days when we came to Formula 1 with Toro Rosso and we just got a one-year-old car from Red Bull technology and where we could race with a third of the money.”

Conversations over customer cars, listed and non-listed parts and data sharing have been sparked in 2020 by the FIA investigation into the rear brake ducts of Racing Point.

Found guilty of running parts believed to have been predominantly designed by Mercedes, Racing Point has appealed the sanction handed to them by the FIA, a €400,000 fine and a 15-point deduction of constructors' points, as being too harsh, while Renault and Ferrari believe it to be too lenient.

Of the regulation in question, one from the sporting code rather than the technical code, Tost said: “We have currently a regulation which tells you there are listed parts which you have to design in house. It’s quite clear.

“Then there are non-listed parts. These you can buy from a competitor.

“The big discussion now we have because of the brake ducts came because from last year to this year the brake ducts became listed parts, which was not the case in the past.

“Of course, teams use parts of brake ducts of last year and now we will see what the International Court of Appeal, the ICA, will decide, but of course we need a clarification of where we are.

“The rest of the regulation, for me, I think is clear.”

Before you go...

Alonso will be "one to watch" despite poor Indy 500 qualifying warns Hinchcliffe

Vettel: "Not frustrated" at Ferrari but "I've been in a happier place"

Comments

No comments have been posted yet.
You must be logged in to post comments.

Login
 

Write a comment

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first!
Ontdek het op Google Play